4th IPM Symposium
Abstract :
IPM assessment programs take two distinct
forms, based on distinct objectives. Programs that aim to
encourage IPM use "assessment" scoring systems to
characterize levels of IPM adoption, often for industry certification
purposes. While useful for building program participation,
practice-based scoring systems generally do not provide adequate
information for public program assessment. Programs that aim
to evaluate the efficiency of public expenditures use measures
of specific techniques adopted and specific environmental,
health and profitability impacts. The primary focus of the
assessment component of the National Roadmap for IPM is the
latter form - public program assessment.
Along the three major dimensions of IPM assessment - profitability,
health and environmental - it is helpful to think of how IPM
effects both mean outcomes and the risk of bad outcomes. "Risk"
in this sense refers to the probability distribution of outcomes
(e.g., crop yields) that may be affected by IPM practices.
As evidenced by experimental IPM insurance initiatives, crop
farmers care about whether IPM reduces or increases the likelihood
of suffering a bad harvest. A competing use of the term "risk,"
mostly tied to health and environmental impacts, is synonymous
with a bad outcome. For public program impact assessments,
the probabilistic sense of "risk" deserves special
attention, while the casual reference to risk as a bad outcome
will automatically receive attention.
Powerpoint Presentation : 
Framing the Issue and Vocabulary
